The Parties in the Duma and the People

Published:Ekho, No. 13, July 6, 1906.

      Published according to theEkhotext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1965,

      Moscow,Volume 11,

      pages101-104.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Yesterday’sdebate in the Duma on the appeal to the people provides extremely
valuable material for the political education of the broad masses.

Thequestion of appealing to the people proved to be such a vital one that the
intrinsic nature of the different political parties was revealed with a clarity
that left nothing to be desired. On this question the Duma found itself as if in
a vice between the reactionary autocracy (“the government’s
communication”) and the revolutionary people, whose struggle outside the Duma
forced itself, one might say, through every chink and crevice of the
Taurida Palace.[2]From the moment it opened, the debate irresistibly swung
over from formalities and details to the very core of the question.

Whyappeal to the people? This is the question that eminently confronted the
Duma. It coloured the whole debate. It raised the whole debate to the plane on
which we formulated the question in yesterday’s leading

			       article,[1]i.e., the
issue became: To reply to the fighting statement of the Cabinet with a lighting
statement of the Duma? To make no reply at all? Or to try to smooth out
differences and soften the acuteness of the issue, an acuteness created by life
it self.

Thebattle was opened by the Right wing in the Duma. The Right-wing Cadet
Petrazhitsky, tried to secure the adjournment of the debate. Naturally the
Octobrists supported this Bight-wing Cadet. It became obvious that the counter
revolution was afraid of the Duma appealing to the people.

Byits definite stand the reaction helped to rally the whole Left wing of the
      Duma. The proposal to adjourn the debate was defeated. The debate itself
      very distinctly revealed the three main trends in the Duma. The
      “Rights” (the Octobrists and a section of the Cadets) were in
      favour of “pacifying” the peasant movement and thereforeopposedto any appeal. The “Centre” (the Cadets and
    probably the majority of the non-party deputies) were in favour of
    “pacifying” the peasant movement and were thereforein
      favourof issuing apacifyingappeal. The “Left”
    trend (the Trudoviks, evidently only, a section of them, and the Social-
    Democrats) were in favour of explaining to the people that theycannot“wait peacefully and passively”, and were
    therefore in favour of arevolutionaryand not a
    “pacifying” appeal.

Theviews of this last trend were most vividly expressed by the Trudovik
Zhilkin, the Polish deputy Lednitsky and the Social-Democrat
Ramishvili. “The people are clinging to their last, almost childish,
hopes,” said Zhilkin. “I am not speaking about peace, order and
tranquillity; I am speaking about the organised struggle against the old
regime.... Did the State Duma come into being as the result of peace and
tranquillity?” And, recalling the October struggle, the speaker, amidst the
applause of the Left, exclaimed: “It is due to these ’disorders’ that we
are here today.” “In this general sense,” rightly said the speaker,
“the committee’s draft of the appeal to the people is very
unsatisfactory” (but he should have added: the Trudoviks’ draft is also
unsatisfactory for it does not contain the ideas and theses that Zhilkin
outlined in his speech). “We must emphasise and at the end express the idea
that not peace and tranquillity, but unrest in the good and grand sense of the
term can organise the masses....

Lednitskyeven employed one of the sharpest expressions that we employed
yesterday, and said that the proposed appeal was “pitiful”.
And Ramishvili, protesting “against calling upon the people to wait
peacefully and quietly for a solution of the problem”, declared:“The revolutionary path is the only true path”(we are
quoting from the report inNasha Zhizn). He also urged that the Duma
should say that the land must be transferredwithout redemption payments.

Mostof the Cadet and “non-party” speakers were in favour of a
“pacifying” appeal; they condemned the taking of revolutionary steps
(Kotlyarevsky answering Lednitsky) and argued that an appeal was useful
“from the point of view of the landowners” (the Cadet Yakushkin).

TheBlack Hundred Volkonsky, backed by Skirmunt and the Right Cadet
Petrazhitsky, argued that the appeal was “dangerous” and likely to
ignite the flames of revolution; and he referred to thelawin
accordance with which the Land Bill had to be passed by the Duma, then sent to
the Council of State, etc., etc., etc.

Thetrends were excellently delineated. Once again it was revealed that the
Cadets are vacillating between reaction and revolution; between the old regime
and the people. Once again events have proved how short-sighted and stupid are
the tactics of “supporting the Cadets”, tactics which can only
weaken the revolutionary position of the Social-Democrats and the revolutionary
democrats in the Duma. Once again events have proved that by acting
independently the Social-Democrats can win over to their side a section of the
Trudoviks and to some extent even split the Cadets.

Thepolitical situation itself is irresistibly determining the tactics of the
Social-Democratic Party. In spite of the efforts of the Right-wing
Social-Democrats, up to now there hasnot resultedany support of the
Cadets, but what has resulted, fortunately, is an independent policy of the
proletariat backed by a section of the peasant deputies. The outcome has not
been the artificial division, invented by the opportunists: the Rights versus
the combined Cadets, Trudoviks and Social-Democrats. The outcome has been arevolutionarydivision: the Social-Democrats and the Trudoviks against
the Rights, with the Cadets swaying like reeds.

Unfortunately,our Social-Democratic deputies did not take full advantage of the
extremely favourable situation. During the general debate they should certainly
have introducedtheir ownSocial-Democratic draft of an appeal to the
people. Only in that case would their policy have been definitively and
completely theindependentpolicy of the representatives of theclassparty of the proletariat, as thevanguardof the
revolution. Only in that case would the correct ideas expressed by Ramishvili,
Zhilkin and Lednitsky nothave been submerged in the debate, but would have been combined, fixed and
      formulated in a clear and resolute platform of revolutionary
      Social-Democracy.

Wecan only express the wish that our Social-Democratic Group in the Duma will
learn the lessons of the groupings that are more and more often occurring in the
Duma, and more resolutely pursue an absolutely, independent proletarian policy;
that when the draft appeal is discussed para graph by paragraph they will at
least to some extent rectify matters by proposing their own independent
amendments couched in consistently revolutionary terms.

ASocial-Democratic draft of an appeal to the people, even if it remains only a
draft read in the Duma, will have an extremely valuable effect in uniting and
developing the revolutionary struggle, and will win over to the side of
Social-Democracy the finest elements of the revolutionary peasantry.

[1]See pp. 96-100 of this volume—Ed.

[2]The Taurida Palacewas the building in which the sessions of the
State Duma were held.